“Humanist Manifesto”

**Awaken4e1** · 09-06-2005 05:52 AM

This is an excerpt from the “Humanist Manifesto”

We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.

Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence[/b]

Man that's scary

The Rev.

**spoon** · 09-06-2005 06:01 AM

edited for your edit (or maybe i missed a bit the first time i read it)

Why exactly is that scary? Seems perfectly reasonable. Otherwise you'd be just letting in every little superstition.

**Awaken4e1** · 09-06-2005 06:15 AM

edited for your edit (or maybe i missed a bit the first time i read it)

Why exactly is that scary? Seems perfectly reasonable. Otherwise you'd be just letting in every little superstition.

The reason way I think its scary is [/quote] Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence.[quote]

Who will be the one to say what "scientific evidence is," and who it will be to set the proof of that evidence.

The Rev.

**Rakkantekimusouka** · 09-06-2005 07:27 AM

You mean, it's sort of like a Big Brother-ish thing?

**spoon** · 09-06-2005 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
Who will be the one to say what \"scientific evidence is,\" and who it will be to set the proof of that evidence.

Now I'm just going to go out on a limb here but, being humanism and all, i guess people will be the ones to set the proof? And as for what "scientific evidence" is, I guess that is up to the scientists.

But that didn't really answer my question, why exaclty is that scary? It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

**Awaken4e1** · 09-06-2005 10:17 AM

Originally posted by spoon

Now I'm just going to go out on a limb here but, being humanism and all, i guess people will be the ones to set the proof? And as for what \"scientific evidence\" is, I guess that is up to the scientists.

But that didn't really answer my question, why exaclty is that scary? It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

But, on the contrary scientist are the lest qualified people to set natural proof of a “supernatural being”, being that there is no scientific proof of God.

P.S. that is to say visible scientist proof

The Rev.

**spoon** · 09-06-2005 10:53 AM

Of course scientists are the most qualified to set scientific proofs for god. Sure, they all fail (as you said), but how is that the fault of the scientists?

So still, what's scary about that?

edited to add: sorry if this is going around in circles - but you cant expect anything more when you never give a straight answer

**Awaken4e1** · 09-06-2005 12:05 PM

Originally posted by spoon
Of course scientists are the most qualified to set scientific proofs for god. Sure, they all fail (as you said), but how is that the fault of the scientists?

So still, what's scary about that?

edited to add: sorry if this is going around in circles - but you cant expect anything more when you never give a straight answer

My straight answer “IS” Scientists are governed by irrefutable empirical physical proof substantiated by a repeatable process of observation. And every physical being knows that an intangible being can not be observed in a control environment. Science can’t prove the existence of an intangible being,

The Rev.

**InTheMoment** · 09-06-2005 02:35 PM

Science can’t prove the existence of an intangible being, [/b]

Nor can it disprove the existence of an intangible being, hence the never ending debate.

**Awaken4e1** · 09-06-2005 03:49 PM

Originally posted by InTheMoment

Science can’t prove the existence of an intangible being,

Nor can it disprove the existence of an intangible being, hence the never ending debate.[/b]

Which by no means is it to say, that it can’t be proven, by any other means i.e. faith!

**InTheMoment** · 09-06-2005 04:11 PM

Which by no means is it to say, that it can’t be proven, by any other means i.e. faith![/b]

I agree...which is why I have "faith" that there is no intangible being.

**spoon** · 09-06-2005 04:27 PM

My straight answer “IS” Scientists are governed by irrefutable empirical physical proof substantiated by a repeatable process of observation. And every physical being knows that an intangible being can not be observed in a control environment. Science can’t prove the existence of an intangible being[/b]

You know you could have just said that at the very beginning. But as you said, no science cannot detect an intangible being. But the burden of proof is not on science, so whats it even matter?

But one could argue that science (or logic) can determine where a god can be, and detect its lack. Zeus is supposed to be on top of mt. olympus and isn't. There is a all-powerful, loving god - yet suffering happens. Etc.

Which by no means is it to say, that it can’t be proven, by any other means i.e. faith! [/b]

Faith cant prove anything. Faith is what you have when there is no proof. Faith is also a very subjective thing, so if you're taking faith as proof for your god (im guessing monotheistic) then you have to take everyone elses faith as proof for theirs. Suddenly heaven gets kind of crowded.

**Awaken4e1** · 09-06-2005 04:54 PM

[quote][quote] *

*Suddenly heaven gets kind of crowded.

A transcendental dimension is without limits, and has no graphical measurement.
A spirit needs no space in the tangible realm

**spoon** · 09-07-2005 02:39 AM

What I meant was heaven gets crowded with gods, which is a distinct problem in a monotheistic religion. Thats the problem with taking faith as proof.

in fact, nevermind, there's no discussion to be had here is there?

**Awaken4e1** · 09-07-2005 05:27 AM

I think if we were alittle clearer we would not have these misunderstanding ?

**InTheMoment** · 09-07-2005 03:12 PM

I thought Spoon was pretty clear and I'm interested to hear Awaken's rebuttal/response in regards to the following statement.

What I meant was heaven gets crowded with gods, which is a distinct problem in a monotheistic religion. Thats the problem with taking faith as proof. [/b]

**Awaken4e1** · 10-16-2005 02:53 AM

Originally posted by InTheMoment
I thought Spoon was pretty clear and I'm interested to hear Awaken's rebuttal/response in regards to the following statement.

What I meant was heaven gets crowded with gods, which is a distinct problem in a monotheistic religion. Thats the problem with taking faith as proof.

[/b]

I would say the only way to respond to this in a natural term is; that energy it consent and does not require physical space, also that God’s children is part of the ‘One God in Heaven’. It is Monotheistic. As far as faith being the problem of ‘proof it is the ‘only real proof of God’s existence…
The Rev.

**spoon** · 10-16-2005 02:13 PM

Awaken:
Which by no means isit to say, that [an intangible being (god) -ed] can’t be proven, by any other means i.e. faith!
spoon:
Faith cant prove anything. Faith is what you have when there is no proof. Faith is also a very subjective thing, so if you're taking faith as proof for your god (im guessing monotheistic) then you have to take everyone elses faith as proof for theirs. Suddenly heaven gets kind of crowded.

Awaken:
I would say the only way to respond to this in a natural term is; that energy it consent and does not require physical space, also that God’s children is part of the ‘One God in Heaven’. It is Monotheistic. As far as faith being the problem of ‘proof it is the ‘only real proof of God’s existence… [/b]

You seem to have missed the point (I'm not too sure, you could work on sentence structure). If you're proving the existence of a god through faith than you have simultaneously proven all gods. Which might not be a problem if you're a pantheist but as your're using faith as proof for a monotheistic god it is a definite problem. Let me clarify:

You statement of "faith is proof for god" is deceptively simple. What you're really saying is "my faith is proof for my particular god and is better than the faith of any religious person who doesn't share my belief ". Monotheism implies atheism in all but one god. Why is faith such a strong proof for your particular deity (and probably even your particular interpretation of your deity) but no proof at all for the myriad of other deities? What makes a christian's faith more compelling evidence than a hindu's?

-spoon

**YourTheManNowDog** · 10-19-2005 05:12 PM

humanism is absolute bullshit from the beginning because it cant account for its own system. nor give a reason for itself.

**Awaken4e1** · 10-20-2005 01:46 AM

Anything that is designed by itself, to serve itself, will eventually devourer itself, for wont from itself to fulfill itself. Sounds like a true Man-made system.

**YourTheManNowDog** · 10-20-2005 03:50 AM

yea i love debating with humanists about their man made ethical system and how they cant give a reason for their own system. secular ethics are hilarious.

**spoon** · 10-20-2005 04:21 AM

yea i love debating with humanists about their man made ethical system and how they cant give a reason for their own system. secular ethics are hilarious. [/b]

Well, I'd contend that religious ethics are man made as well but lets just ignore that for a minute.

If you find secular ethics so funny, what is the reason behind religious ethics? What makes a religious person do x instead of y? All I can come up with is the threat of hellfire, and that makes for an apalling basis of ethics/morality.

Secular ethics have a basis in our biological and social evolution. We act in a manner which aids our survival (biological evolution) and aids the survival of the society of which we are a part (social evolution). Evolution (social and biological) selects for survivability, as a result these mechanisms have evolved into an innate moral sense. The secular basis of choosing x over y is this innate moral sense.

**Awaken4e1** · 10-20-2005 04:30 AM

Only infinitesimal Christians are motivated by hell.

**spoon** · 10-20-2005 04:56 AM

What is inherent in theism that makes people choose right over wrong then? You can't use this innate moral sense because secular ethics accounts for it. What does theism have that motivates people to choose right over wrong, besides the fact that you will burn if you dont. Note that "choosing right to be in the presence of god" or somesuch nonsense translates directly to threat of hellfire.

Please dont just give a one liner. Respond to some points.

**YourTheManNowDog** · 10-20-2005 05:03 AM

spoon, im not a theist but secular ethics make 0 sense based on the fact they are so subjective and have no objective overhead law. whats ethical to one person is not ethical to another....what are you basing secular ethics on exactly you are basing them on wants? needs? come on man. the truth is either you are compassionate or you arent there is no ethical system, theistic or secular. I find secular ethical systems especially hilarious though based on their inability to account for their own ethics or why i should be ethical.